NO412E

Madam Chairperson, the Ministry has prioritised a number of elements in the National Development Plan, NDP, for implementation in the 2015-16 financial year, as reflected in the 2015-16 Annual Performance Plan, APP, that will be tabled here in Parliament during this month.

Among other things, we are emphasising the four pillars of the National Development Plan. The first one is the strengthening of the criminal justice system, which essentially is about the creation of justice co- ordination structures at provincial and local government level. The second area of emphasis is on operationalising the community outreach programmes at the level of the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster, JCPS, as well as the capacity-building of community safety and policing forums.

The second pillar talks to the professionalisation of the Police Service. In this regard, we are looking at establishing relations with research and academic institutions to develop change and transformation programmes as well as marketing campaigns.

The third pillar is the demilitarisation of the SA Police Service, SAPS. In this regard, we are looking at the development of self-discipline and leadership programmes as well as levels of training and equipment that will capacitate and enable the police to deal with issues of public policing.

This area is about the recapacitation of public-order policing as well as advocacy campaigns on the Police Code of Conduct. The fourth pillar is building safety, using an integrated approach and in this regard, again, we are emphasising the question of community outreach programmes with a specific focus on crime hotspots and crime areas.

A second aspect, of course, is to partner with sister departments such as the Department of Social Development and the Department of Home Affairs, the business sector and other community-based organisations. Largely, it is an effort to increase police presence and visibility as well as programmes to enhance the safety of marginalised and vulnerable groups. Thank you very much.

Chairperson, I thank the hon Minister for the response. We, on this side of the House, agree that the question of the professionalisation of the police should be an important priority.

Last Friday, 27 March 2015, the Ministry of Police published the White Paper on Policing, and in Chapter 3 there is a special reference to the question of the professionalisation of the police. In the same chapter it also refers to specialised police units, but also the very important question of ensuring that the police, in terms of going forward, have the necessary resources.

Maybe just to get a response from the hon Minister, what will the police do in terms of the short term to ensure that the professionalisation of the police receives the necessary priority attention? Thank you.

Hon Chair, we have made a number of varied interventions insofar as our efforts to professionalise the SA Police Service, SAPS, are concerned In fact, the publication of the two White Papers, that is, the White Paper on Police as well as the White Paper on Safety and Security, will also serve as a platform that must enrich the discussion and debate in our society on this particular effort.

The White Paper on Police, for instance, has to assist us with ensuring that we have an accountable, professional and competent police service as well as focusing on the level of the skilling of our Police Service.

Of course, I have alluded to the issues of the four pillars of the National Development Plan, NDP, insofar as issues of professionalisation, demilitarisation and all other points of emphasis, including the question of enhancing community participation, are concerned.

The White Paper on Safety and Security will also serve as a platform from which to assist the criminal justice cluster as a whole; for instance, in the creation of the co-ordination structures at the local, provincial and national levels to assist both our legislative and administrative work in the execution of this particular function. Thank you very much.

I gave up asking the previous Minister about the demilitarisation in terms of the Defence Force ranks, but I have personally asked the current National Police Commissioner because the SAPS today seems to be a paramilitary force which sees our citizens as the enemy. The National Commissioner said that she has no intention of doing so, and patently she loves being called a general almost as much as hon Bheki Cele does, even instructing various entities to still call him that despite having absolutely no right to the title. When will we rid our SAPS of the odious apartheid era military ranks? Sir, give us the date. [Applause.]

Hon Chair, I certainly do think that the question of demilitarisation should be an issue that is seen far beyond the question of ranks. The point of emphasis here is the approach that we have to adopt as a police service, for instance, in relation to executing our work as the police and not necessarily in terms of ranks.

The example that I can give you is that you can demilitarise or strip away ranks as much as you can, but if you have not worked on my state of mind, I will still be militaristic in my approach. The second example is that you have, for instance, the Salvation Army, which is a religious formation or denomination of sorts whereby reverends are called captains and everything else and so on. [Laughter.] But it does not take ... [Laughter.] [Interjections.]

Hon Barnard, I am trying to illustrate a point here that the fact that you hold a particular rank does not necessarily make you militaristic or violent in any form or in any other way.

The point is that in the debate that this society should have on the question of the demilitarisation of the police service, for example, the emphasis should be on the question of the approach to policing as opposed to the question of ranks. That is the starting point. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

[Mr M A MNCWANGO: Madam Chairperson, I just wanted to ask the Minister, based on his response when he said that they will reinforce the communication structures between the police and the community: How do you intend doing that, because as I'm talking now the relationship between the police and the community is very bad. Secondly, you talk about professionalisation of the police: How do you intend doing this when their leader is not a police officer? For this to happen in the right way, their Police Commissioner must come from the ranks of the police officers who understand how police officers perform their duties as well as how the police service operates. Thank you.

Thank you very much, hon Mncwango, for your question. It is very true that the relationship between the police and the community still needs a lot of work. But maybe what you and I cannot really agree on, my homeboy, is to say that it is so bad that you want to compare it to the time of the apartheid government. Actually, a lot has been done to try to restore the image of the police service in the present situation. This doesn't mean that everything is perfect and complete. It means that we still need to work, but the forums which we need to work with are those that are community based, such as the community policing forums and the organisations in your respective communities as well as your political organisations. They are supposed to come together in carrying out the duties and to assist the police because the responsibility of creating safety in our communities is the duty of all of us. It is not only the duty of police officers just because they are clad in their uniforms, but it is also our responsibility to establish how we will build a safer environment where we live.

The final issue you raised regarding the type of person who should be the Police Commissioner - we can debate that until sunset, and therefore I would request that we not entertain that issue because it will not assist us in any way. The important thing is that the police service, as an organisation, should be led and operated in a certain way, in order for it to be an instrument which promotes democracy as well as creating an environment that is conducive to live in ... [Time expired.]]

Hon Chair, to the hon Minister, the question is: In the context of your partnership with other government departments, what immediate steps do you intend taking - immediate is the key word - in order to secure judges and other personnel in Mthatha High Court? Thank you.

Assuming that I understood your question and that it is more of a specific matter pertaining to the issue of securing judges in Mthatha, frankly I will not be able to give you an immediate answer right away except to say that, of course, it is the first time I hear that there is a specific matter pertaining to the safety of judges around the jurisdiction of Mthatha and so forth. I would love to be exposed to that ...

We'll meet for a coffee? Okay. I would love to be exposed to that particular circumstance as an example so that we can then study the actual factors and circumstances pertaining to the particular matter in regard to Mthatha. Thank you very much.

We now move on to the next question, but before we do so can I address hon members?

The Speaker received a letter from the Minister of State Security about certain questions that could be sub judice and asking that these questions should stand over. [Interjections.]

Rule 115(1) does allow for a question to stand over. The indication is that the matter should also be raised by the Ministry with the member who had asked the question.

I take it that this issue relates to an earlier issue where the hon Steenuisen, indeed, expressed that it would have made it easier if the matter could have stood over, instead of, in his view, the question being answered in the way that it was.

In respect of that, and having taken into consideration Rule 115, I would suggest that the question stands over.

Madam Chair, I would like to address you in terms of Rule 67. The sub judice rule, as I said earlier, refers to matters where there is a judicial decision pending and where issues discussed in the House may tend to prejudice the outcome of the case. In relation to the signal jammer, in Parliament's own papers before the court they have conceded the point already. There is a letter from the Secretary of Parliament indicating that it was an error and that it will never happen again - and that matter has been dispensed with.

What is before the court in the SA National Editors' Forum, Sanef, matter now, is the issue about the outside broadcast from this Chamber. Therefore the matter of the signal jammer is no longer sub judice. And that was why the Minister was very happy to issue a public statement on the matter.

He was quite happy to throw a junior official under the bus for it, but now won't come to account to this House for those public statements.

Madam Chair, I must implore you not to allow the executive to put on the shroud of the sub judice rule in an effort to deflect the tough political questions that they need to answer in the House. [Applause.]

The matter is not sub judice and the Minister must please answer the question. [Applause.]

I then said that in terms of the Rules, the Speaker or the one who is presiding at the time can make a ruling in terms of Rule 115.

I explained that the letter had been written. I indicated that given the earlier discussion and the very point you yourself raised after the Deputy President responded, and having considered it, I would recommend that the question stand over. You have, indeed, raised the point that in your view the letter may not apply to this question.

I will now take hon Ndlozi's point of order. [Interjections.] Hon Maimane, take your seat.

Can we address the first question? We said the question falls away, but it actually doesn't fall away, it stands over. The question from hon D J Maynier stands over, the one we are referring to. Does that answer your question, hon Ndlozi? [Interjections.]

[Dr P J GROENEWALD: Hon Chairperson, I think that the ruling is wrong and I will tell you why I think it is wrong.

Hon Maynier is asking the hon Minister whether he will accept responsibility. He is not asking about the matter, the merits of the matter or anything else. He is merely asking whether the hon Minister will accept responsibiity concerning this matter. We do not know what the outcome is going to be.

I think it is a very reasonable question coming from this House, in regard to the responsibilities of the Minister. The question, in other words, does not concern the court case and the sub judice rule, but the question concerns the responsibility of the hon Minister, and the hon Minister should answer it. Thank you.]

Thank you, hon member. Hon members, may I make a proposal? Given the issues that are being raised, we would like to have a consultation and then I will come back to the House. [Interjections.]

I have noted your point, hon Maimane and I will come back to you. Can you give the Presiding Officer a chance to consult with the legal services and the Minister in respect of this question and then I will come back to you? I am not saying that we are not going to discuss this matter.

Chairperson, I just want to give input into the consultation you are going to have. This is because next week - in fact, seven days from now - the President will be here to answer questions. I want to know whether we will use signal devices and whether the police are also coming so that we can prepare ourselves, regardless of the sub judice rule. You can use the sub judice rule, but next week he is coming, so the Minister must answer.

Chairperson, may I address you on a point of clarity: You said that you are going to consult with regard to the two questions and come back to the House. Will you come back to the House before the end of the session today?

Hon Ndlozi, are you rising on a point of order? Hon Maimane raised the point, trying to assist me. I allowed him to do so and clearly, it was not assisting me as he was putting a new question; so, hon Ndlozi, may I ask you to just write a note to me to advise me?

Hon Chairperson, I am not going to play games. On a very serious note, I would like you to consider the principle here that these questions have been submitted on time. The parliamentary leadership is aware of this, the leadership of the Cabinet is aware of this and if a decision is taken that they stand over, there must be recourse.

It also means that we must be able to use the time that we have; we must not forfeit this time. We must ask a new question. Can that be a consideration? The Minister must respond.

Firstly, you said you wanted to assist and clearly the matter you raised did not assist. You were asking a completely new question in respect of the process.

Can I just say to hon members, on your point that the questions were submitted on time, you are correct. The member of the executive received the question and wrote to the Speaker in terms of his rights too, referring to the question. I have just read the response from the executive in respect of that question.

Clearly, hon Steenhuisen argues that this question is not affected by the sub judice rule, and I said to members to allow me to consult and we will then come back before the end of this session of the House. So I don't think issues of consequences apply at the moment. In respect of Question 31, we will hold the consultations with legal services and the Ministry.

Hon Chair, on a point of order: I just want to make sure that you clearly understood what I said because I doubt whether the legal people understand Afrikaans as well as they are supposed to. Is it clear that the point the FF Plus is rising on is not a question about the court case but a question about the responsibilities of the Minister to answer in this House? I just want to make sure. Unfortunately, I cannot repeat it in IsiXhosa or IsiZulu and I apologise for that.

Chairperson, let us just indicate that, when you look at Question 46 and the other subsequent Questions, we must firstly be able to record that we did receive the Questions, and secondly, this matter, which is also referred to in Questions 31 and 46, is the same.

Members are aware of these matters. Even they themselves are speaking as representatives of the SA National Editors' Forum, Sanef. I am a fourth respondent in the High Court here in the Western Cape, on a matter that deals with what happens here in the Chamber. Hon members, as you took an oath, you must respect the Constitution and respect the Rules ... [Interjections.]

Hon Chairperson, you have just made the ruling that with respect to the Questions that are sub judice, you are going to come back to the House.

The hon Minister, conscious of this, stands up and his point of departure is that this Question and the Question you have just ruled on are the same. So I think that we must assist one another. Let us be consistent. You are going to come back with a ruling. So the Minister must put it in that basket and not take up this time.

I have made a proposal that if he is not going to take this time to respond to this Question, we take another Question that we must be given because we acknowledge that we all had enough time to know that we don't want to respond to these Questions. [Interjections.]

Hon Chairperson, the plough-back campaign has many successful events and projects which have enhanced the development aspirations of local communities. This has brought about closer relations between offenders, victims and communities, thereby facilitating the healing process that the programmes, in part, aim to achieve.

The following programmes, for example, have been introduced as a means to enhance social reintegration of offenders.

Firstly, with the Adopt-a-School programme, the different skills of offenders are being utilised in disadvantaged communities to renovate dilapidated schools, clean schoolyards and establish food gardens.

Secondly, in the cleaning campaigns, the offenders are used to clean community parks, buildings and graveyards without any compensation. School repairs and cleaning programmes are undertaken by parolees, probationers and ex-offenders in most of the regions in the country.

In the Western Cape Region, parolees and ex-offenders have cleaned and repaired schools in Cape Town, namely in the West Bank area and in the Southern Cape in George and Mossel Bay areas.

Thirdly, in building campaigns offenders were utilised to build houses for the victims of crime. This has led to restoration, reparation and acceptance of offenders by victims in many of these instances.

Fourthly, in campaigns for employability of offenders, prospective employers were lobbied to employ parolees and probationers, despite their criminal records and the stigmatisation that follows as a result of past offenders' behaviour and the stigma that is associated with it.

Lastly, in the school-tours campaign, the offenders, by becoming ambassadors against crime, are used to motivate pupils to abstain from committing crimes. These tours expose pupils to the environment of correctional centres which serve as a deterrent to crime. Thank you.

Hon Chairperson and Minister, we agree that this all goes a long way in assisting with the reintegration of offenders.

Minister, you alluded to destigmatisation and discrimination with regard to criminal records. Our own experience is that a criminal record is probably the biggest hindrance to the productive reintegration of ex-offenders and the return of their human dignity. However, I heard you saying that you have asked certain industries to employ ex-offenders regardless of that, but the question I am asking is: Hasn't the time arrived when we reduce the bureaucracy that is required to expunge criminal records?

I am asking that question because in the main, those who are affected by this stigmatisation are the poor people, the black people, and they need the assistance the most. I thank you.

Hon Chairperson, I am in agreement with the hon member that indeed having a criminal record has the effect that he has alluded to. As the hon member is aware, in general, the expungement of criminal records is available to persons who have not been sentenced to prison without the option of a fine, and only after a period of 10 years has lapsed since the date of the conviction.

I have been informed by the department that the expungement process can unfortunately take a long time due to the volume of applications for expungement and the verification process of criminal records, in terms of which a person must first apply for a clearance certificate from the Criminal Record Centre at any police station before the application can be submitted to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration.

However, I need to indicate that on a daily basis, I receive requests also in relation to the applications for presidential pardons, which is another avenue that is used to actually expunge criminal records.

We do concede that indeed a criminal record has a negative effect on somebody when it comes to being able to move on with their lives, and as a result, especially with minor crimes that do not involve violence or the violation of women, we tend to be very amenable to recommending the expungement of such criminal records so that previous offenders are able to develop further in their lives. Thank you.

Hon Chair, are we right in our understanding that the budget for rehabilitation was underspent last year, and will this campaign help to address that underspending in any way? Is the campaign fully operational, and what challenges are hindering implementation? Thank you.

Chair, we have, since we commenced with the current administration, identified a number of weaknesses in the programmes of the department.

Therefore we have been in intense engagement with the management of the department to identify those weaknesses, especially in the area of rehabilitation, skills development and community reintegration. This is because we believe that those are the priority areas where the impact of our intervention and our new policy thrust can find expression, the policy thrust being that the focus is no longer to run prisons, but to run correctional facilities and correctional services in order to correct past criminal behaviour and to skill offenders so that they can be reintegrated and engaged in constructive conduct and activity after they have served their term in our correctional facilities. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we, as the EFF, want to put a simple question to the hon Minister: When are they going to stop justifying and rationalising the irrational, that the Justice and Correctional Services department, in its sober mind, decided to release Eugene de Kock, a cold- hearted murderer who acted in defence of a system which was declared worldwide to be a crime against humanity?

Yet, the department and the government of the ANC decided to release such a man, whereas thousands of Azanian People's Liberation Army, Apla, cadres are still languishing in prisons ... [Interjections.] - I don't know about MK - and have been denied bail on a continuous basis. Don't they believe in their own people, in their own justice and their rehabilitation?

Chairperson, I am not sure about the denial of bail, whether that is in relation to matters that are on trial in that regard, or whether the member actually wants to refer to parole, because the matter of Mr Eugene de Kock was essentially about an application for parole.

However, be that as it may, if indeed the hon member is asking about parole, we would like to first indicate that indeed following a dispensation that political parties represented - most of which are represented in this House in 2007 - a dispensation was agreed upon to consider presidential pardons in respect of certain persons who committed political offences.

Certain recommendations were made to the then President. However, they were intercepted by court judgments following court challenges that were mounted in that regard. We have in the interim decided to fast-track the parole applications in respect of those who were identified and are still in our correctional facilities in order to ensure that their parole applications are processed speedily and are brought to finality, whilst the issue of presidential pardon applications, in respect of those offenders, continues to be dealt with in the Office of the President in consultation with the Justice Ministry and us.

So, certainly, very soon we should be in a position to make some announcements with regard to the release on parole of some of those offenders who were affected in that regard. [Interjections.]

Madam Chair, we do appreciate the strategies by government to help reintegrate ex-offenders. Our observation, however, is that on the ground there are certain communities which are still reluctant to rehabilitate ex-offenders. The question is: Can these ex-offenders have recourse to the government? In other words, will they receive any measure of support from the department if they cannot access work or are sidelined from funding due to their criminal record? If not, why not? And, if so, what are the relevant details? Thank you.

Hon Chair, thank you for the follow-up question. I wasn't sure of the context in which the hon member states the role of communities in rehabilitation because I thought that was the responsibility of Correctional Services.

But, be that as it may, on the second part of his follow-up question, which relates to the resistance to absorbing ex-offenders in the employment environment and to offering them employment opportunities, we continue from our side to advocate the employment of these offenders.

We acknowledge that, in fact, in some instances, there are specific laws that restrict the employability of ex-offenders, especially those who would not have had their criminal records expunged yet.

I can say, for example, by way of illustration, that having served on the Magistrates Commission, where we consider applications for appointment as magistrates, we look objectively at the nature of the offence, and whether it impacts on the applicant's suitability, in other words, whether that applicant is a fit and proper person to appoint.

There have been instances where people have committed minor offences in the past and have volunteered information in that regard by disclosing such offences so that we've been willing to actually recommend their appointment and, in fact, they have been appointed.

So, the mere fact that a person has committed an offence in his or her life is not in and of itself a permanent ban on that person to obtain employment in life. We want to encourage employers not to deny them the opportunity to participate in gainful employment purely on the basis that a person has committed an offence. Thank you.

Government's intentions regarding support to people of Palestine

24. Mr M A Mncwango (IFP) asked the Minister of International Relations and Co-operation:

Whether the Government intends to support the people of Palestine by any means to force the Israelis to free them and does it include supplying the people of Palestine with (a) weapons and (b) funds; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details? NO427E

Madam Chairperson, the response to the question by hon Mncwango is that South Africa, in her practice of international relations, advocates for the settlement of conflict through peaceful means, including entering into genuine negotiations.

South Africa has recognised the state of Palestine since 1995, and it supports the Palestinian cause to establish a viable and territorial Palestine state, existing side by side in peace with the state of Israel at a bilateral level. South Africa has continuously used her influence to leverage in the multilateral fora to advocate the recognition of Palestine's right to self-determination.

Over the past 20 years South Africa has undertaken a number of efforts aimed at supporting Palestine towards the achievement of a two state solution. These include the following bodies. Firstly, at a multilateral level, there is particularly the UN Group of 77, G77 and the Non-aligned Movement, Nam; as well as the African Union, AU; Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, Brics; and the India-Brazil- South Africa Dialogue Forum, Ibsa.

Secondly, South Africa supports and lobbies for the independence and self- determination of Palestine. In this respect, it calls for serious and genuine negotiations that would result in a just resolution of Palestinian and Israeli conflicts.

Thirdly, as you would know, the President appointed former Minister Zola Skweyiya and former Deputy Minister Aziz Pahad as his special envoys to convey his message of concern with regard to the escalating violence to the people of Palestine.

Fourthly, South Africa has also contributed by pledging US$1 million for humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza following the 50-day war between Israel and Palestine in 2014.

Finally, through the Ibsa partnership programme, South Africa has partly funded the construction of social development infrastructure projects in Palestine. In this regard, three such projects were initiated, namely the Ramallah Indoor Sports Complex that was officially inaugurated in October 2011; the Red Crescent Al Quds Hospital in Gaza, launched in 2012; and the People with Disabilities Project in the city of Nablus. On 22 August 2012, the South African Cabinet approved government Notice 379, pertaining to the correct labelling of Israeli goods produced in Palestine's occupied territories. Thank you, Chair.

Madam Chairperson, all these diplomatic niceties that the Deputy Minister is talking about are indeed commendable.

However, the real issue is how South Africa is to remain credible in assisting in the negotiation process when members of the ruling party in this House take a firm stance in favour of Palestine over Israel, in contradiction of government's proclaimed stance of supporting the two-state solution.

It's amazing that Parliament also joined the bandwagon in that during the official opening of this Parliament, it actually extended an invitation to none other than a political maverick by the name of Khaled.

Chairperson, the policy of this government is a two-state solution. That doesn't mean that people cannot articulate what is right.

All of us gathered here know that the 50-day war in Gaza in 2014 targeted civilians, in particular, women and children. For a long time we have known of the suffering that the people of Palestine have been going through, so the fact that we acknowledge that they must also be free doesn't mean that we are moving away from saying that the solution will be for these two countries to live peacefully, side by side. [Applause.]

Chairperson, on a point of order: I didn't want to disturb the speaker when he was asking a follow-up question, but I think it's beneath the dignity of a Minister of state to keep on angrily waving at the speaker while he was talking. I'm referring to the Minister of Small Business Development. [Interjections.]

I think it's beneath the dignity of a Minister of state to do that. I think we have been talking about keeping and maintaining the decorum of the House, but if this comes from a Minister of state, I really wonder what we are talking about.

Hon Mpontshane, thank you very much, but that was not a point of order. [Interjections.] Order, hon members! You are raising a question which I'm sure the members of the Rules committee seated here will be able to take up in discussion. For now can we allow hon Ndlozi to ask a follow up question?

Hon Minister, in its international solidarity conference in 2012 the ANC adopted boycotts, divestments and sanctions as a strategy to deal with the international isolation of Israel. It did this, and it said this was because Israel is an apartheid, colonial, occupationist state which denies the people of Palestine the right to self-determination.

Negotiations have failed. Israel bombed Gaza during negotiations last year. So you can't insist on saying negotiations, negotiations, while you yourselves agreed at your conference that the only route is boycotts, divestments and sanctions.

Therefore, we are asking when you as government are implementing boycotts, divestments and sanctions as an international solidarity strategy against Israel, particularly as it pertains to the diamonds of South Africa being cut in Israel.

Chairperson, I'm sure hon Ndlozi was putting the question to the ANC, and I'm sure the ANC would answer that question adequately. I am standing here responding on behalf of the Department of International Relations and Co-operation, which is responsible for the policies of this government in relation to these issues.

Hon Chairperson, I think you must assist us because you are responsible, in your preamble, in allowing the Minister to answer after misconstruing my question. My question asked: When is the government implementing that particular strategy articulated in the ANC?

I am asking why your policies are not going via the route of boycotts, divestments and sanctions. You influenced her in evading the question by asking whether I am asking the ANC or whether I am asking government. By the way, when it is convenient those two things are the same.

Hon House Chairperson, on a point of order: There is a follow-up question as to when government is implementing boycotts, divestments and sanctions.

That question has been put to the Deputy Minister of International Relations and Co-operation. Can we please get a response to that question without having to speak about other organisations? Can we please get a response to that follow-up question, and not this zigzagging which is being done here? [Interjections.]

Order, hon members! Thank you very much, hon Shivambu. [Interjections.] Order, hon members! Hon members, I think it's important for all of us to appreciate that we put questions to members of the executive and they provide answers. In your opinion it might be that the answer that you were given was not adequate or was no answer, as you say, but in this instance the Deputy Minister has answered.

If you would like, you could ask another follow-up question in written form, which I think is possible for members to do, or maybe ask a further question during another Question session. For now ... [Interjections.]

Hon Chairperson, please assist the House. You are the one who must assist us here with having order. My question was very clear: When is government implementing boycotts, divestments and sanctions?

You influenced the Minister in thinking that I'm asking the ANC the question. You must correct it! It's not wrong to admit that there was a mistake made with regard to this matter. Even the Deputy Minister just said that the ANC will answer, and sat down.

However, we are not asking the ANC. We are asking when the strategy on Israel will be boycotts, divestments and sanctions. The Minister must answer, so please assist us.

Madam Chair, I am sure what caused the confusion is what the hon member said earlier about where the policy was made.

In answer to the last question of when is the government going to implement the policy of boycotts, there is no policy of boycotts in the government. Therefore, it's not going to be implemented. Thank you very much. [Interjections.]

Chairperson, I just wanted to ask whether the two envoys who were sent to Palestine by the President have concluded their work. If they have, have they submitted the report and when are we going to be presented with the report - if there is a report. Thank you.

Madam Chairperson, on a point of order: I think this question is related to the original one. We are deliberating on matters related to Palestine and the question speaks to the President's emissaries who went to Palestine.

Hon Khubisa, in terms of the question, it is indeed a new question you are raising. However, as you said, the Minister in her response referred to that matter, so I will allow the Minister to respond if she has an answer. The DEPUTY MINISTER OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION (Ms N C Mfeketo): Chairperson, the response is that the envoys appointed by the President have contributed so much to what we saw as relief after the 50- days war.

They went around the whole region - all the countries that must play a role in resolving the question of Palestine - and attended many meetings.

I think the question is: Have they completed their task? They have not completed it as yet. Yes, there is relief, but they continue to deliberate.

As we all know, the whole of the Middle East is burning. They are continuously deliberating with different countries and different stakeholders to find a permanent solution which is not there at the moment. So it's still work in progress. Thank you very much.

Deputy Minister, the issue at hand is that of mixed communication around the official South African position. Can you clearly and consistently clarify what South Africa's position is with regard to the role that government intends to play in order to ensure that the Israel- Palestine conflict solution is achieved - clearly and consistently?

Chair, there is no confusion here. There is one policy for this country of solving problems through negotiations and a peaceful resolution to the problems.

This is our policy with Palestine as well as Israel. We talk to both of them and try very hard. As I said earlier, whilst we are doing that we can't ignore that there's a side, because of its strength, that at times doesn't really want to be part of the negotiations, but the policy remains the same.

We are sharing our own experiences, namely that we are sitting here today because we solved our problems - which were not that different to Palestine's problems - through negotiations. Thank you very much.

Hon members, earlier on, on Question 31 and Question 46, I said I would come back to hon members. We've had consultations with our legal services and we also consulted the Minister with regard to the questions that have been asked and how members reacted during my earlier pronouncement.

In terms of legal services they have said that indeed the matters are before the court and the Minister also indicated the same. The Minister did, however, say that he would be willing to answer. But members should appreciate that he might not be able to deal with some of the matters, because those are matters before the court. I will allow the Minister to respond to Question 31 and then to Question 46.

Chairperson, on a point of order: Because you said he must deal with them combined, can you please outline the procedure of follow- ups? We are already dealing with technology that we are not confident with here with regard to the follow-ups. Are you going to take eight follow-ups; what's going to happen?

Hon Ndlozi, please take your seat. There is no change in the way in which questions are answered. I only said that the Minister will answer both questions. He will start with Question 31, and there will be follow-up questions as usual.

Then we'll come to Question 46, and supplementary questions will follow - as they are supposed to - so there is no change.

The reason I said he would deal with both questions was because those two questions were suspended while we were consulting.

Position regarding acceptance of political responsibility for error involving use of signal jamming device

31. Mr D J Maynier (DA) asked the Minister of State Security:

Whether he will accept political responsibility for the operational error involving the use of a signal jamming device at the State of the Nation Address on 12 February 2015 and resign; if not, why not; if so, when will he resign?

Contact us

People's Assembly

Disclaimer

The data for this site has been sourced form a range of organisations and websites and often received in formats that are hard to process. As a result, errors can occur - if you see something that you think is an error, please click on the "Correct This Page" button and let us know so that we can investigate. Please click here to read more about our source data.